A.thousheed Hussain, Pjcj, Atp

In the Court of the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Prohibition & Excise Cases, Anantapuramu

Present:- A.Thousheed Hussain, Prl.Junior Civil Judge,

(FAC)Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Prohibition and Excise cases, Ananthapuramu

Tuesday the 27 th day of March , 2018

C.C.NO.162/2012

Between:-

State Rep. by Sub-Inspector of Police, Anantapur II town P.S. …Complainant

AND

Dasari Pasupuleti Yacob @ Yebu, 22yrs, s/o Ganesh, OG.Kuppam,

Nagiri Mandal, Chittoor District. ... Accused

This case is coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of APP for the state and the accused, and upon hearing both sides and having perused the material on record, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Sub Inspector of Anantapur II town P.S. filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.167/08, 121/09 and 135/09 for the offence punishable u/s 379 of IPC.

2.The brief contents of the charge sheet are as follows:

On 8.8.08 at about 12.30pm PW7 has withdrawn a sum of

Rs.70,000/- from the Corporation bank, Subash road, Anantapur and while going to his residence in his motor bike one stranger came from Suryanagar circle across the motor cycle and after some time he observed that the cash kept in bag fixed on the back side of the motor cycle was found missing.

On a complaint given by PW7, PW9 registered a case in Cr.No.167/2008 u/s 379 IPC, and took up investigation.

On 17.4.09 LW2 Jithendra Sarab and PW1came to Anantapur on their personal work and has drawn Rs.1,75,000/- from JDFC bank, Anantapur 2 and spent Rs.33,800/- towards business work and kept the remaining amount of Rs.1,41,200/- in a cover and moved towards bye pass road in Bolero jeep bearing No.AP21 S 3888 to purchase articles and stopped the vehicle infront of National Automobiles at bypass road, Anantapur and after purchasing the articles they noticed that the rear wheel of the jeep was punctured and when they are trying to change the tyre by keeping cash cover in the jeep and after changing the tyre noticed that the cash cover was found missing. All the efforts to trace the same went in vain. On a complaint given by LW2,

PW10 registered a case in Cr.No.121/2009 u/s 379 IPC, and took up investigation.

On 28.4.09 PW3 proprietor of Durga Petroleum services situated near Tower clock, Anantapur directed PW2 who is the cashier to deposit a sum of Rs.1,51,000/- in Andhra Pragathi Grameena bank, PTC branch,

Anantapur, Rs.1,12,000/- ion S.B.I, Sainagar branch, Anantapur and also further directed to purchase a DD in SBI. When PW2 was moving infront of

Sujatha hotel situated in Sapthagiri circle, Anantapur, as the traffic was jammed suddenly he has slow down his motor cycle and after some time noticed that the cash bag containing cash of Rs.1,12,000/- and other voucher books were found missing. On a complaint given by PW2, PW8 registered a case in Cr.No.135/2009 u/s 379 IPC, and took up investigation.

Subsequently, LW14 G.V. Ramana took up further investigation in

Cr.No.121/09 and 135/09 and recorded the statements of witnesses. PW11 took the accused into cucstody while he was trying to commit the offence near Tower clock, anantapur and on interrogation the accused confessed all the above offences along with other offences. PW11 arrested the accused under cover of mahazar in the presence of PW4 and LW7 B. Sreenivasulu and sent him to judicial custody. PW12 got P.T. warrant through court and interrogated the accused in which the accused confessed that he has given some of the stolen property to one Pasupuleti Munikuppulu and Armugam.

PW12 made efforts to arrest them, but they are absconding.

3

3)The cognizance was taken against the accused for the offences u/s 394 or 411 IPC by the learned AJFCM, Anantapuramu and numbered as

C.C.50/2014. As per the orders of the Hon'ble Dist. & Sessions Judge,

Anantapuramu this case was transferred to this court and it was renumbered as C.C.126/2016.

4)On appearance of the accused, all relevant case records were furnished to them as required under section 207 of Cr.PC.

5)The accused were examined Under Section 239 Cr.P.C by framing the charges for the offences U/S 394 or 411 IPC, read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which they denied the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried according to law.

6)The prosecution examined PW1 to PW10 and got marked Ex.P1 to P14 and M.Os1 to 11. No witnesses are examined and no documents are marked on behalf of the accused.

7)After closure of prosecution side evidence, the accused were examined under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C and they denied the incriminating evidence deposed against them by the prosecution witnesses. They further stated that they no defence evidence on their behalf.

8)Heard arguments of both sides and perused the records.

9)Now the point that arises for determination is:

Whether the prosecution able to bring home the guilt

of accused for the offences punishable U/S 379 IPC

beyond all reasonable doubt?

10)POINT:

The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argued that the accused are the habitual offenders and committed theft of cash at various places and the evidence of prosecution witnesses corroborated with each other and supported the prosecution case and requested the court to convict the accused according to law.

11) The learned defence counsel argued that the evidence of prosecution witnesses not supported and corroborated with each other. The 4 evidence of investigation officers and defacto complainants not corroborated with each other and the prosecution failed to prove the case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, prayed to acquit the accused.

12) PW1 K. Raghu Naik deposed that previously he owned a Bolero bearing No.AP-21-S-3888 and he gave the said Bolero on hire basis to M/s.

South West Pinakin exploration i.e., PVT Ltd., Company of Delhi and he used to work as driver to the said Bolero on monthly salary of Rs.7000/- and he worked as driver in the above said company from December 2008 to July 2009. He knew LW.2 Jitendra Sarab as he worked as Supervisor for the above said company. He cannot identify the accused present in the court. PW1 further deposed that on 19.04.2009 while himself and LW.2 were proceeding from HDFC Bank of Ananthapuramu after withdrawing of amount to purchase the oils in National Auto Mobiles on NH-7 of Ananthapuramu in their Bolero and they went to the above said oil shop and while they were purchasing in the said shop some unknown person came to them and he told them that the type of their Bolero got punctured and himself and LW.2 went to their Bolero and found the same and when they opened the door of their Bolero they found the cover in which cash of Rs.1,40,000/- and odd was found missing and himself and LW.2 enquried about the cover of cash but their efforts were in vain. Subsequently LW.2 after furnishing information to their superiors preferred a complaint at Ananthapuramu II Town Police Station.

13. PW2 C. Narasimhulu Cashier in Petrol Bunk Sri Durga Agencies, deposed that on 21.04.2009 during the election period PW3 owner of Petrol

Bunk gave him cash of Rs.1,12,000/- and asked him to deposit the same in the account of their petrol bunk. Accordingly he proceeded on his two wheeler by keeping the said cash being kept in a bag in the said pocket of his motor cycle in order to proceed SBI, Sai Nagar Branch. While so, when he reached near by Sapthagiri Circle he stopped his motor cycle on the red signal mark and again he proceeded to SBI branch and when he opened said bag of his motor cycle he found missing the cash bag. He put his efforts to trace out same but his efforts were in vain. He informed the same to PW3 5 through phone. After arrival of PW3 he preferred a complaint.

14.PW3 L.S. Swamy Rao Proprietor in Sri Durga Petrol Service, deposed that on 21.4.2009 he gave cash of Rs.1,12,000/- to PW.2 and asked him to deposit the same in their petroleum services account in SBI branch of

Sai Nagar. On the same day at 1:30 PM he received a phone call from PW.2 and he was informed that some unknown offenders committed theft of

Rs.1,12,000/- being kept in the said bag of his motor cycle. He admonished

PW.2 why he kept the said cash in the said bag of his two wheeler and he gave instructions to PW.2 to search for the said cash but he came to know that his efforts were in vain and subsequently on his instructions PW.2 preferred a complaint in the II Town P.S., Ananthapuramu.

15.PW4 G. Lakshminarayana Reddy, the then Deputy Tahsildar,

Ananthapuramu deposed that on 8.8.2009 while he was present at his office at approximately 2.40PM his Tahsildar informed him that he received information from Inspector of III town police through phone that they required mahazardars. On the instructions of their MRO, he acted as mahazardar, the Inspector of III town PS caught hold the accused with regard to the various offences of theft committed by him in the jurisdiction of

Ananthapuramu town and the police already seized cash of Rs.60,000/- concerned to the III town PS crimes. On the said day he attested the mahazar in the III town PS with regard to the above said incident. The attested copy of mahazar dt.8.8.2009 at 3.00 PM is marked as Ex.P.2.

16. PW7 Mohana Venkata Prasad deposed that on 8.8.2008 he withdrew cash of Rs.75,000/- from Corporation Bank, Ananthapuramu. The denomination for the said cash was hundred rupee notes and he kept said cash in one bag. When he reached Sapthagiri circle he found that his cash was stolen by unknown persons. Immediately he went to the Police station and he preferred a complaint Ex.P.5.

17. PW8 R. Prathap Reddy, the then SI of Police, Ananthapuramu II

Town P.S deposed that on 28.4.2009 at 10.00 AM, he received complaint from

P.W.2 and basing on it he registered a case in Cr.No.135/2009 and he issued 6

FIR under Ex.P.6. He submitted the copies of FIR to the officers concerned.

Further investigation in this case was done by L.W.14.

18. PW9 G. Chalapathi, then ASI of Police, Ananthapuramu II Town

P.S deposed that on 8.8.2008 at 4.00 PM while he was present in the Police

Station, P.W.7 came to P.S and presented a written complaint. Basing on which he registered a case in Cr.No.167/2008 U/s 379 IPC and issued Ex.P7

FIR. He submitted the copies of FIR to the officers concerned.

19. PW9 further deposed that on the same day he secured the presence of P.W7, Sujatha and Maruthi Prasad examined them and recorded their statements. He visited the scene of offence situated at the main gate of

Corporation Bank, Ananthapuramu and he observed the same and drawn

Ex.P8 rough sketch of the same. Further investigation in this case was done by Inspector of police, II town PS, Ananthapuramu.

20. PW10 B. Nagabhushanam, the then Head Constable II Town P.S,

Ananthapuramu deposed that on 17.4.2009 at 5.30 PM while he was present in the Police Station, LW.2 by name Jithendra Sarab came to PS and presented a written complaint. Basing on which he registered a case in

Cr.No.121/2009 U/s 379 IPC and issued Ex.P9 FIR. The complaint given by

L.W.2 is marked as Ex.P.10. In the station itself he examined P.W.1 and L.W.2 and recorded their statements. On the same day he visited the scene of offence and drawn Ex.P11 rough sketch of the same. Further investigation in this case was done by Inspector of police of II town PS.

21. PW11 G. Veeraraghavula Reddy, the then Inspector of Police, II

Town P.S, Ananthapuramu deposed that on 8.8.2009 at 2.00 PM while he was present in the Police Station, B.Narayanaswamy, C.Nagendra Prasad and

G.Anil Kumar produced one person before him and they stated that they caught hold said person near Syndicate Bank while he was trying to extract money from Boyapati Narayanaswamy. Being received the said information from the above constables he secured mahazardars PWs.3 and 4 and informed to them they have to act as mahazardaars and they consented for the same. In the police station itself on the same day at 3.00 PM he 7 interrogated the said person in isolation in the presence of P.Ws.3 and 4, wherein he disclosed his name and particulars as that of the accused in this case and he further voluntarily stated that he along with other three members used to commit offences of thefts in and surroundings of Banks situated in Ananthapuramu.

22. PW.11 further deposed that he along with other three persons used to watch the movements of the people who used to go the bank and used to snatch the money kept in the side bags of the two wheelers and four wheelers also. In total he confessed his guilt in 6 crimes of Ananthapuramu jurisdiction. Basing on his confession he identified the crime numbers and police stations concerned in which he committed the said offences. The accused produced stolen cash of Rs.60,000/- and identified the same as the case property concerned to Cr.No.189/2009 of III town PS of Ananthapuramu.

He further produced one Screwdriver with which he used to threaten as well as open the dickeys of the two wheelers. He also produced his personal cash of Rs.60/-. He concluded the mahazar at 6.00 PM by affecting the arrest of you accused and seizure of cash of Rs.60,000/- and Rs.60/- and Screwdriver.

23. PW11 further deposed that when he questioned you accused with regard to the other amounts stolen by him concerned to other crimes then he stated that he along with the other three persons distributed the said amount among themselves and they spent the said amount for their personal use. Attested copy of mahazar dt.8.8.2009 at 3.00 PM is marked as

Ex.P.12. He returned to police station and he sent the accused to court for judicial remand in Cr.No.189/2009 of III town PS. Subsequently he got produced the seized case property in this case before the court. He informed about the arrest of the accused and his confession with regard to other offences to the police personal concerned for taking necessary steps.

24. PW12 B. Vijaya Kumar, the then Inspector of Police, II Town P.S,

Ananthapuramu deposed that he took up investigation in this case and he obtained P.T warrant and on execution of P.T warrant, he produced the accused before this court in Cr.Nos.135/2009, 121/2009. On 28.8.2009 at 8 6.00 PM he obtained the police custody of the accused and interrogated him in the presence of P.Ws.5 and 6 wherein he disclosed his identity particulars as the accused in this case.

25. PW.12 further deposed that the accused voluntarily stated that he committed offences being accompanied by other persons who are absconding in the jurisdiction of Ananthapuramu and other parts of the state and the amount which was stolen by him with regard to the crimes concerned to II town PS, Ananthapuramu was shared among him and other persons who were absconded and the accused spent the said amount for his personal work. He affected the said mahazar under Ex.P13 in the presence of PWs.5 and 6. After completion of his investigation, he laid charge sheet in this case.

26)In this case PW2 and PW7 who are defacto-complainants did not identify the accused who are also the material witnesses in this case. PW1 and PW3 did not see the alleged offence committed by the accused. PW5 and 6 who are mahazardars in this case turned hostile and not deposed anything against the accused.

27)PW4 is the mahazardar in another crime. But he did not act as mahazardar in this case. Moreover he admitted in his cross examination that he did not enter in his office the purpose of acting as mahazardar in this case. It is true he did not receive information from CI of III town to act as mediator in this case. He acted as mediator in number of cases. If really he acted as mediator in this case then there would be some record to show that he acted as mediator and he would enter the details in his office and also there is is no summon to show that PW4 acted as mediator by police. From this it creates doubt in the evidence of PW4.

28)PW5 and PW6 are important witnesses in tis case. The alleged witnesses who are witnesses to the alleged arrest committed, but they did not support the case of the prosecution.

27)As per the evidence of PW11, Ex.P12 drafted in the III town police 9 station itself where police seized one screw driver used in the alleged offence, and also seized personal cash of Rs.60/- of the accused and other cash of Rs.60,000/- which was committed theft in various offences. PW11 stated that while he was present in the police station B. Narayanaswamy, C.

Nagendra Prasad and G. Anilkumar produced the accused stating that they caught him near Syndicate Bank while he was trying to extract money from

B. Narayanaswamy. But, the above said 3 persons were not cited as witnesses which is fatal to the prosecution case.

28) PW8 to PW12 are the investigation officers in this case. They are pertained to registering the case, visiting the scene of offence, seizing the material objects used in the commission of offence and also seized stolen property, arrested the accused. Their evidence is not trust worthy.

29)In the above said circumstances, and in the light of the evidence,

I am of the opinion that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the offence against the accused charged u/s 379 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt.

Hence, accused is entitled for benefit of doubt and benefit of doubt is given to him as the said offence is not proved against the accused.

30) In the result accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable u/s 379 IPC and he is acquitted U/s.248(1) of Cr.P.C. for the said offence. The Superintendent, District Jail is hereby directed to release the accused forthwith if he is not required in any other case. The unmarked non- valuable property if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by stenographer corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, this the 27 th day of March, 2018.

Spl.Judl.Magistrate of Ist Class, Proh. & Excise Cases, Anatapuramu.

A ppendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

Prosecution Defence

PW1 : K. Ranganayakulu Nil PW.2: C. Narasimhulu PW.3: L.S. Swamy Rao PW.4: G. Laxminarayana 10

PW5: P. Prabhakar PW6: G. Srikanth Naidu PW7: Mohan Venkataprasad PW8: R. Pratap Reddy PW9: G. Chalapathi, C.I of police PW10: B. Nagabhushanam, retd., SI PW11: G. Veera Raghava Reddy, SI of police PW12: B. Vijayakumar, DSP of police

Exhibits marked for Prosecution

Ex.P1: Complaint Ex.P2 : Mahazar dt.8.8.09 Ex.P3: Signature of PW5 in mahazar dt.8.8.09 Ex.P4: Signature of PW6 in mahazar dt.8.8.09 Ex.P5: Complaint in Cr.No.167/08 Ex.P6: FIR in Cr.No.135/09 Ex.P7: FIR in Cr.No.167/08 Ex.P8: Rough sketch in Cr.No.167/08 Ex.P9: FIR on Cr.No.121/09 Ex.P10: Complaint in Cr.No.121/09 Ex.P11: Rough sketch in Cr.No.121/09 Ex.P12: Attested copies of mahazar dt.8.8.09 Ex.P13: Mahazar dt.28.8.09

Exhibits marked for defence : Nil

Mos marked: Nil

SJFCM 11

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

District :: ANANTAPURAMU.

Calendar cases tried by the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Prohibition and Excise Cases, Ananthapuramu.

Apprehensi Commence-

Released Close of Sentence Offence Report on of ment of on Bail Trial or Order

Accused Trial

8.8.2008 8.8.2008 17.4.2009 17.4.200928.8.2009Remand27.2.201827.3.201827.3.2018 28.4.09 28.4.09

Judgment in C.C.No.162 of 2012 on the file of the Special Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Prohibition and Excise Cases, Ananthapuramu.

Complainant: The Sub Inspector of Police, Anantapur II town P.S

Crime No:167/08, 121/09 and 135/09

Name of the Father's Age Religion Calling Residence Mandal Accused Name

D. Pasupuleti Yacob @ 22GaneshHindu--OG KuppamNagiri Yebu

Offence: U/Secs. 379 IPC

Finding: Not guilty.

Sentence: In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable u/s 379 IPC and he is acquitted U/s.248(1) of Cr.P.C. for the said offence. The Superintendent, District Jail is hereby directed to release the accused forthwith if he is not required in any other case. The unmarked non- valuable property if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time

Spl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class,

Proh. & Excise Cases, Anatapuramu.

Copy submitted to the Hon’ble I Addl. Sessions Judge, Anantapuramu. Copy to the Superintendent of Police, Anantapuramu.

1

In the Court of the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Prohibition & Excise Cases, Anantapuramu

Present:- Sri. A.Thousheed Hussain, Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Prohibition and Excise cases, Ananthapuramu

Wednesday the 28th day of February, 2018

C.C.NO 42/2011

State rep. By SHO., Mahila P.S.,

Anantapuram ....Complainant.

AND

1. J. Saifulla s/o Late J. Imamsab,29yrs, Jr.Asst., SEE Office, Anantapur 2.J. Fakrubee w/o Late J. Imamsab, 65yrs, Both are of D.No.5/105, V road,

Anantapur ..... Accused.

This case is coming on 27.2.2018 for final hearing before me in the presence of learned APP for state, and of Sri C. Raghurama Reddy, Advocate

for the accused, and upon hearing both sides and having perused the

material on record, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Sub Inspector of Police, Mahila P.S, Anantapur filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.30/2011 for the offences under Section 498-A and 406 IPC and Sec.4 and 6 of D.P Act.

2.The brief facts of the charge sheet are as follows:

The marriage between PW1 and A1 was solemnized on 29-12-02 in the house of PW6, Tadipatri and the parents of PW1 gave Rs.30,00,000/- cash 15 tulas gold, Rs.50,000/- to purchase Hero honda Spleneder, house hold articles. PW1 joined A1 to lead marital life at 5th road, Anantapur along with A2 mother of A1 and lived happily for one year and blessed with male child. After that A1 and A2 started harassing PW1 physically and mentally for additional dowry and for simple matters.. After birth of second child A1 developed illegal intimacy with one Geetha, typist in his office and used to stay with her only and used to come home at late night and unnecessarily 2 beat PW1 and necked out from the house. PW1 informed the matter to her parents and preferred a complaint in Mahila PS and after counseling A1 took

PW1 and lived together. Since then accused harassed PW1 and necked out from the house and warned not to come without additional dowry. PW1 preferred complaint in the Mahila PS. On the complaint of PW1, LW9 registered case in Cr.No.30/09 u/s 498-A, 406 IPC and Sec.4 and 6 of D.P act.

LW9 examined the witnesses and recorded their statements and on 23-10-09

A1 was arrested and A2 secured anticipatory bail vide Cr.MP No.1606 dated 18-12-09.

3.The cognizance was taken against the accused for the offence under section U/S 498-A, 406 IPC by the learned AJFCM, Anantapuramu and numbered as C.C.274/2010.

4.On appearance of the accused, all relevant case records were furnished to them as required under section 207 of Cr.PC.

5.During the course of examination, as per the orders of the

Hon'ble District & Sessions Judge, Anantapuramu the case was transferred to

this court and it was renumbered as CC 42/2011.

6.On Consideration of entire material on record, the accused were examined U/s.239 code of Criminal Procedure, charges U/s. 498-A, IPC and

Sec.3, 4 and 6 of D.P.Act have been framed against them, read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which they denied the same and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried according to law.

7.In order to prove the case, prosecution examined PWs.1 to 8 and got marked Ex.P1 to P10 on behalf of the prosecution. On the other hand, DW1 is examined and Ex.D1 marked on behalf of the accused.

8.After closure of prosecution evidence the accused were examined U/sec. 313 Cr.P.C by explaining the available incriminating material on record, they denied the same and reported no defence side evidence.

9.Heard both sides

10.Now the point that arises for determination is:

3

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of accused

for the offence U/Sec 498-A, IPC and Sec.3, 4

and 6 of D.P.Act beyond all reasonable doubt?

11.POINT: PW1 deposed that she studied up to 10th class, her marriage with A1 was performed on 29.12.02 by the elders at the house of her maternal uncle Syed Vali who is the sister’s son of A2. A1 is working as

Junior lineman. At the time of marriage her father gave Rs.3,00,000/- cash,

Rs.50,000/- to purchase bike to A1, 15 tulas of gold ornaments, iron birava, cot and other house hold articles to A1 and A2 on demand. After the marriage she joined the accused at Anantapur to lead marital life and lived happily for one year and then A1 and A2 started harassing her that A1 is a government employee and if she marries another woman they will get more dowry and so they demanded her to get more dowry and used to beat her for even small things stating that she was not preparing food properly. At the time of marriage the accused were residing in a house by way of mortgage and after her marriage they intended to purchase the said house and so harassed her to get money from her parents.

12.PW1 further deposed that during their wedlock she was blessed with 2 sons Sharmas Vali 9yrs, and J. Onnur Vali 4yrs. During her stay in holidays, her father paid Rs.1,00,000/- to the accused and obtained document for purchase of said house in the name of herself and her husband. After purchasing the said house her husband forcibly obtained the document in his name alone by beating her. Her elder brother used to visit her in-laws house and the accused apprehended that she will inform the harassment and forcibly made her to say her brother not to visit her due to which her brother suspected and informed the same to her parents and a panchayat was held by elders in which they advised the accused and went away.

13.PW1 further deposed that after the birth of her second son A1 developed illegal intimacy with one M. Geetha, who is working as typist in the office of A1 and used to come home late night and harassed her that said

Geetha is government employee who is rich and having money and land and 4 he wants her only for which he will return the dowry and give half of the salary every month if she leaves him. For that A1 and A2 harassed her indiscriminately. A1 used to make phone calls to Geetha in her presence and on one occasion when A1 was trying to go to said Geetha she tried to stop him, but A2 stopped her that A1 is male and will go to anybody but, she tried to resist A1 for which A1 and A2 beat her and kept in a room and leaked gas from the gas stove by insisting her to leave A1. After 3 or 4 days A1 kept her outside the house whole night for not leaving him and on the next day allowed her to the house.

14.On 13-9-09 she contacted her parents over coin box phone. She informed the harassment of the accused to her parents and then at Mahila

PS, Anantapur who called the accused and Geetha and made counseling for 2 days. Geetha submitted that she will not continue her relationship with A1 and police sent her and accused to her matrimonial home. For one month she stayed with the accused, but the accused continued their harassment stating that she took the accused and Geetha to police station. She beared the torture as per the advise of her parents thinking about her future. The accused did not provide milk or food to her second son aged 1 ½ years then and not allowed her to go outside the house.

15.PW1 further deposed that on 19.10.09 A1 brought one tin and pressurized her to drink the content by pressing the neck of her 2nd son. On 22.10.09 she returned to her parents house and gave Ex.P1 to Mahila PS.

Ex.P2 are two photographs with negatives under which dowry was given by her parents to her husband and his family members. Ex.P3 is wedding card,

Ex.P4 is application filed by her u/s 6 of Right to Information Act. Ex.P5 is certified copy of sale deed dated 9.1.2004 under which her parents purchased a house in the name of herself and her husband. Ex.P6 is certified copy of gift deed in which her husband forcibly transferred the house. Ex.P7 is certified copy of cancellation of gift property dated 13.6.06.

16.PW2 to 4 and PW6 supported the evidence of PW1.

5 17The learned counsel for the defence argued that the prosecution failed to produce earlier complaint before this court which was given by PW1 to police which is fatal to the prosecution case.

18.Admittedly PW1 gave a complaint against the accused prior to giving

Ex.P1 but it is not fatal to the prosecution case. In the family matters these type of case, police try to compromise the matter before registering the case. The same fact was deposed by PW7 who is the investigation officer in this case that on 13.9.09 PW1 came to police station as her husband harassing her and she is accepted for conducting counseling at the counseling center, they sent PW1 to counseling center. Thereafter in counseling both accepted they will lead happy marital life, from there they went away. From the evidence of PW7 it is clear that police conducted mediation between PW1 and A1 and both accepted it and PW1 joined A1. In such circumstances no one bothered about the complaint whether to retain the complaint with them or not.

19.The learned counsel for the accused further argued that extra marital relationship of A1 cannot be treated as mental cruelty against PW1. To support their contention the learned counsel for the accused relied on a decision reported in 2015(2) ALT Crl 113 SC para 20 between Bhusabhai Raisangbhai Chorasiya and others Vs. State of Gujarat.

“20. Coming to the facts of the present case it is seen that the

factum of divorce has not been believed by the learned trial judge and the

High court. But the fact remains is that the husband and the wife had

started living separately in the same house and the deceased had told her

sister that there was severance of status and she would be going to her

parental home after the ‘Holi’ festival. True it is, there is some evidence

about the illicit relationship and even if the same is proven we are of the

considered opinion that cruelty as envisaged under the first limb of

section 498-A IPC would not be get attracted. It would be difficult to hold

that the mental cruelty was of such a degree that it would drive the wife

to commit suicide. Mere extra-marital relationship even if proved would

be illegal and immoral, as has been said in Pinakin Mahipatray Rawal

(supra) but it would take a different character if the prosecution brings

some evidence on record to show that the accused had conducted in such

6

a manner to drive the wife to commit suicide. In the instant case the

accused may have been involved in an illicit relationship with the

appellant no.4 but in the absence of some other acceptable evidence on

record that can establish such high degree of mental cruelty, the

Explanation to 498-A which includes cruelty to drive a woman to commit

suicide, would not be attracted.”

20.From the above case it is clear that having extra marital relationship is not a cruelty and it is illegal and immoral act.

It is the evidence of PW1 that on one occasion, A1 leaked the gas threatening her to leave his company. Having made such allegation, PW1 did not choose to explain how she escaped the said attempt. It is not her evidence that she was rescued by others or that she escaped from the clutches of the accused. Same is the case with another alleged incident of forcing her to drink some liquid from a tin. It is her evidence that she was forced to drink the contents of a tin by pressing the throat of her son, but there was no explanation from her as to what happened next. It is not her evidence either that she escaped the said attempt of the accused by herself or that she was rescued by others. Had it been the case that the accused tried to kill her by leaking gas or by forcing her to drink the contents of a tin, he would not have backed off until the said act is completed unless some intervention is there, but surprisingly no such evidence came on record. If at all she suspected that there is threat to her life, such threat would have arisen on the day A1 leaked the gas itself. No serious incident than that can be expected from a person to set the criminal law into motion where an attempt is made to end her life by the accused, but it was not done. These allegations made by PW1 which are far from logic, throws a doubt as to whether really such incidents have occurred as deposed by her.

21.The learned counsel for the accused further argued that as per Rule 5 of Dowry Prohibition Rules the limitation to prosecute the accused is one year from the date of demand of dowry. Admittedly, as per the evidence of Pws1 to 3 they gave 3 lakhs, 15 tulas, Rs.50,000/- cash to purchase motor bike and other articles at 7 the time of marriage. Admittedly, the marriage took place in the year 2002 and the complaint given by PW1 in the year 2009 i.e., more than 7 years after the date of alleged payment of the amount and other articles. Hence, as per Rule.5 of Dowry

Prohibition Rules the report given by PW1 is not at all maintainable and it is barred by limitation.

22.Further more, PW3 gave one lakh to A1 to purchase the property under

Ex.P5 in the year 2004. Hence, as per Rule 5 of D.P.Rules the provisions of D.P.Act is not maintainable and it is barred by limitation as the complaint given in the year 2009.

23.Since the allegations are that dowry has been given at the time of marriage and additional dowry given in the year 2004 to purchase the house under Ex.P5, PW1 was entitled to recover back that dowry within three months from the date of marriage and if the same was not handed over to her, an offence had been committed u/s 6 of D.P. Act which was punishable with imprisonment up to the period of 2 years. In view of the provisions of

Sec.468 Cr.P.C PW1 had 3 years limitation to bring the complaint for that offence. Earlier steps taken by the PW1 on 22-10-09, by that time her remedy for prosecution of accused for the offence under D.P. Act, should be barred by limitation.

24.Pws2 to 4 and 6 are hearsay witnesses. So their evidence is not helpful to prove the prosecution case against the accused and PW5 who is independent witness turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. PW7 and PW8 who are investigation officers have done routine investigation and so their evidence is also not helpful to the case of prosecution.

25.From the above discussion this court feels that the prosecution failed to prove the offences against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offences u/s 498-A IPC and Sec.3, 4 and 6 of D.P.Act beyond all reasonable doubt.

26.In the result, A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offences u/s 498-A, IPC and Sec.3, 4 and 6 of D.P.Act and they are acquitted u/s 248(1) 8

Cr.P.C for the said offences. Their bail bonds shall remain in force u/s 437-A

Cr.P.C. The unmarked case property if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to stenographer in part, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, this the 28 th day of February, 2018.

Sd/- A. Thousheed Hussain

Spl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class for Prohibition and Excise offences, Anantapuramu.

A ppendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

Complainant

Accused

PW1 : J. Shajabee DW1: Geetha PW2: T. Mahaboob Bee PW3: T. Nabirasool PW4: T. Allabaksh PW5: C. Narayanamma PW6: Shaik Syed Vali PW7: M. Laxminarayanamma PW8: M.P. Indira, SI of police

Exhibits marked for complainant

Ex.P1: Complaint Ex.P2: Two photos with negatives Ex.P3: Wedding card Ex.P4: Application filed by PW1 u/s 6 of Right to Information Act. Ex.P5 is certified copy of sale deed dated 9.1.2004 under which her parents purchased a house in the name of herself and her husband. Ex.P6 is certified copy of gift deed in which her husband forcibly transferred the house. Ex.P7 is certified copy of cancellation of gift property dated 13.6.06 Ex.P8: Signature of PW4 on attested copy of sale deed dt.9-1-04 Ex.P9: Portion of 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW5 Ex.P10: FIR

Exhibits marked for accused:

Ex.D1: 7th line in 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW6

Mos marked

Nil

Sd/- ATH

SJFCM

//True copy//

Spl. JFCM

9

CALENDAR CASES TRIED IN THE SPECIAL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

FOR PROHIBITION AND EXCISE CASES, ANANTAPURAMU

Date of Report or Apprehe Released Commen Close of Sentence

Offence Complain nsion of on bail cement trial Order

t accused of trial Prior to 22.10.09A1= A1=2.11.3.2.201217.11.1728.2.2018 22.10.0923.10.092009 A2=18.12 .09

Calendar and Judgment in CC.No.42/2011 on the file of Special Judicial First

Class Magistrate for Prohibition and Excise Cases, Anantapuramu.

Complainant : Mahila P.S Anantapur

Cr.No. : 30/2011

Name of theAgeFather'sName Religion CallingResidenceMandal Accused J. Saifulla29Late J.Muslim--V roadAnantapur Imamsab

J. Fakrubee65Late J.Muslim--V roadAnantapur Imamsab

Offence :-U/s 498-A, IPC and Sec.3, 4 and 6 of D.P.Act

Finding :- Found not guilty

Sentence or Order:-In the result, A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offences u/s 498-A, IPC and Sec.3, 4 and 6 of D.P.Act and they are acquitted u/s 248(1) Cr.P.C for the said offences. Their bail bonds shall remain in force u/s 437-A Cr.P.C. The unmarked case property if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Special Judicial I Class Magistrate, for Prohibition and Excise Cases, Anantapuramu.

In the Court of the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Prohibition & Excise Cases, Ananthapuramu

Present: A.Thousheed Hussain,

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Anantapuramu

FAC Spl. Judicial First Class Magistrate,

(Prohibition & Excise Cases), Ananthapuramu,

Wednesday, the 4 th day of April, 2018

C.C.NO.195/2017

Between:-

State Rep. by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Ananthapuram Rural P.S.…Complainant.

AND

1) Etikala Nageswara Reddy S/o E. Nagi Reddy, 37yrs,

2) Etikala Nagi Reddy s/o Late Rami Reddy, 62yrs,

3) Etikala Lakshmamma w/o E. Nagi Reddy, 59yrs, All are of D.No.5-40 of Neelampalli village,

B.K.Samudram Mandal....Accused

This case is coming on 2.4.18 for final hearing before me in the presence of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for state and of Sri. A.V.Siva Reddy,

Advocate for the accused and upon hearing both sides and having perused the material on record, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1)The Sub Inspector of Police, B.K.Samudram P.S filed charge sheet against accused in Cr.No.33/2015 for the offence u/s 324 r/w 34 I.P.C.

2)The case of the prosecution is that the accused and defacto-complainant are neighbours. On 12.2.15 PW1 washed her clothes near her house and the waste water went to the house of A1. At about 3-30pm A1 to A3 called PW1 and when she came out of the house A1 to A3 attacked her and A1 beat her with stick on head and she sustained injury and then A2 and A3 beat her with hands and legs and caused dumb injuries. Pws2 to 4 witnessed the same and rescued PW1 and PW2 took her to GGH, Ananthapuram in an auto. On 15.2.15 on receipt of medical admit intimation PW5 registered a case in Cr.No.33/15 u/s 324 r/w 34 IPC and took up investigation, examined Pws1 to 4 and recorded their statements, prepared rough sektch. PW6 took up further investigation, arrested the accused on 18.2.15 and released him on bail. PW7 verified the ivnestigation done by PW5 and 6 and 2 filed charge sheet. LW5 Dr. Roshan Sab issued wound certificate to PW1 and opined that she sustained simple injuries.

3)The cognizance was taken against A-1 to A-3 for the offence under section 324 r/w 34 I.P.C by the learned AJFCM, Ananthapuramu and numbered as

C.C.611/2015.

4)On appearance of A-1 to A-3, copies of case records were furnished to them as required Under Sec. 207 of Cr.P.C.

5)As per the Proceedings of the Hon'ble Dist. & Sessions Judge,

Anantapuramu this case was transferred to this court and renumbered as

C.C.195/2017.

6)The accused were examined under Sec.239 Cr.P.C and charge u/s 324 r/w 34 I.P.C was framed, read over and explained to them in Telugu. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7)In order to prove the case, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 7 and got marked Ex.P1 to P6 on behalf of the prosecution.

8)After closure of prosecution side evidence, the accused A-1 to A-6 were examined under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C and they denied the incriminating evidence deposed against them by the prosecution witnesses. They further stated that they have no defence evidence on their behalf and do not have any more to say.

9)Heard both sides.

10)Now, the point arose for determination is:

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of A-1

to A-3 for the offence Under Sec 324 r/w 34 IPC

beyond all reasonable doubt?

P O I N T :-

11)The learned A.P.P argued that with the help of prosecution witnesses examined as PWs.1 to 6 the prosecution could successfully establish that A-1 to A3 voluntarily caused hurt to PW1 with dangerous weapon i.e., stick and with hands and legs, the evidence of Pws1 to 4 and PW5 to 7 investigation officers corroborated with each other and supported the case of the prosecution and prayed to convict 3 the accused.

12)The learned defence counsel argued that PW1 skid on the wall and sustained injuries. Taking advantage of injuries she filed this false case agaisnt the accused as there were earlier disputes between LW2 and brother-in-law of LW2. So prosecution miserably failed to prove their case and prays to acquit the accused.

13)In this case the eye witnesses to the alleged incident is Pws3 and 4. their evidence is that they know accused, PW1 as they are residents of their village, they never witnessed any quarrel in between PW1, LW2 and accused and they also does not know any facts of this case and was not examined by the police. They turned hostile and not supported the prosecution case. So, their evidence is not helpful to prove the alleged incident.

14)The evidence of PW2 is that he witnessed A1 beat PW1 with a stick on the left side of head as a result of which PW1 sustained bleeding injury and fell on the ground. A2 and A3 kicked PW1 with hands and legs. But, in his cross examination he admitted that by the time he reached the scene of offence already his neighbours 7 in number were present there. PW1 also admitted in his cross examination that the altercation took place for 5 minutes and then A1 beat her with a stick and she raised hue and cries on hearing the same LW2 who was present in the house came out of the house. From the admissions of PW1 and 2 it is clear that

PW2 was not present at the scene of offence and not witnessed the alleged incident.

So, his evidence is also not helpful to prove the case of the prosecution.

15)PW1 deposed in his chief examination that A1 beat her with stick on the backside of her head resulting in which she sustained bleeding injury and she fell down on the ground. A2 and A3 kicked her and she raised hue and cries. On hearing the same PW2 who was present in the house rushed there. In cross examination she deposed that A1 beat her with a stick once and she sustained injury on the left side of her head. In chief she stated that she sustained injury on the backside of the head whereas in cross examination she deposed that she sustained injury on the left side of her head. She is not sure on which side she sustained injury which is creates doubt to the prosecution case. There is a 4 contradiction in the evidence of PW1 and 2 with regard to time of incident and scene of offence.As per the evidence of PW1 the incident occurred at 3-30pm whereas PW2 deposed that the incident occurred afternoon hours. Moreover, PW2 admitted in cross examination that by the time he reached the scene of offence already 7 neighbours were present there. But, the investigation officer failed to examine those 7 persons which is fatal to the prosecution case.

16)Further more, there is a contradictory evidence with regard to giving of complaint and registering the case. As per the evidence of PW5, the incident occurred on 12.2.15 at 3-30pm and police received information on 15.2.15 at 8.00am while he was present I the police station. On receipt of medical admit intimation of PW1, PW5 made the same as entry in the G.D and proceeded to GGH,

Ananthapuram, secured the presence of PW1 and examined her and recorded her complaint statement, returned to police station and registered the case. In cross examination PW5 deposed that they received information about the offence on 14.2.15 at about 11-00pm. But, in chief examination he deposed that he received intimation on 15.2.15 at 8-00am. Moreover, PW5 admitted in cross examination that he prepared rough sketch on 12.2.15. From the admission of PW5 it shows that they prepared rough sketch prior to giving of complaint and registering the case which is creates a doubt yo prosecution case.

17)Moreover, PW2 also deposed in cross examination that they gave complaint against he accused on 12.2.15 between 3-00 to 4-00pm. PW1 deposed that in cross examination that she gave complaint before B.K.Samudram police station at 6-00 to 6-30pm. There is a contradiction between the evidence fo PW1,

PW2 and PW5 with regard to giving of complaint and there is different version from

PW1, PW2 and PW5 with regard to giving of complaint which creates reasonable doubt on the prosecution case.

18)Moreover, the investigation officer failed to seize the stick which is used as weapon to the alleged offence which is fatal to the prosecution case.

19)Considering all the facts, this court feels that prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the offence U/S 324 r/w 34 I.P.C.

5

20)In the result, A-1 to A-3 are found not guilty for the offence under Sec.

324 r/w 34 of IPC and they are acquitted U/s.248(1) of Cr.P.C. for the said offences.

The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for six months as per the provision u/s 437-A Cr.P.C. The unmarked case property, if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by stenographer corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, this the 4 th day of April, 2018.

Sd/- A. Thousheed Hussain

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Ananthapuramu FAC Spl. Judl. First Class Magistrate, (Prohibition & Excise Cases), Ananthapuramu.

A ppendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

Prosecution Defence

PW1 : B. Shashikala Nil PW.2: B. Nageswar Reddy PW.3: K.V. Narayana Reddy PW.4: N. Ramalinga Reddy PW5: D. Sreenivasulu, Head constable PW6: J. Mohankumar Gowd, S.I of police PW7: R. Ramaiah, S.I of police

Exhibits marked for Prosecution

Ex.P1 : Complaint Ex.P2: 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW3 Ex.P3 :161 Cr.P.C statement of PW4 Ex.P4: FIR Ex.P5: Rough sketch Ex.P6: Wound certificate of PW1

Sd/- ATH

PJCJ (FAC)Spl.J.F.C.M.,

//True Copy//

PJCJ (FAC)Spl.J.F.C.M., 6

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

District :: ANANTAPURAMU. Calendar cases tried by the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Prohibition and Excise Cases, Ananthapuramu.

Apprehension Released Commence- Close of Sentence or Offence Report of Accused on Bail ment of Trial Trial Order 12.02.201515.02.201518.2.201518.2.20159.8.20175.1.20184.4.2018

Judgment in C.C.No.195 of 2017 on the file of the Special Judicial Magistrate of

First Class, Prohibition and Excise Cases, Ananthapuramu.

Complainant: The Sub Inspector of Police, Anantapur Rural P.S.

Crime No: 33/2015

Father's

Name of the Age Religion Calling Residence Mandal

Name Accused

E. Nageswara Reddy37E. Nagi ReddyHindu--NeelampalliB.K. Samudram

E. Nagi Reddy62IbrahimHindu--NeelampalliB.K. Samudram

E. Lakshmamma59E. Nagi ReddyHindu--NeelampalliB.K. Samudram

Offence: U/Sec. 324 r/w 34 IPC

Finding: Not Guilty.

Sentence: In the result, A-1 to A-3 are found not guilty for the offence under Sec. 324 r/w 34 of IPC and they are acquitted U/s.248(1) of Cr.P.C. for the said offences. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for six months as per the provision u/s 437-A Cr.P.C. The unmarked case property, if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Ananthapuramu Spl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Proh. & Excise Cases, Anathapuramu.

Copy submitted to the Hon’ble I Addl. Sessions Judge, Anantapuramu. Copy to the Superintendent of Police, Anantapuramu.

7

In the Court of the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Prohibition & Excise Cases, Ananthapuramu

Present:- Sri. A. Thousheed Hussain, Prl.Junior Civil Judge,

(FAC)Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Prohibition and Excise cases, Ananthapuramu

Monday, the 9 th day of April, 2018

C.C.No.954/2017

Between:-

State Rep. by Sub-Inspector of Police, Atmakur P.S.…Complainant.

AND

1. Boya Akkulappa @ Kotla Akkulappa, S/o Late Kotla Obanna, 51yrs,

2. Boya Ravi s/o B. Obanna, 34 years,

3. Boya Vannuri @ Boya Onnurappa, s/o Late B. Obulesu, 37yrs,

4. Boya Lakshmidevi w/o Vannurappa, 34yrs, All are of Padamati Yaleru, Atmakur,

Anantapur District.. Accused

This case is coming on 6.4.2018 for final hearing before me in the presence of APP for the state and of Sri K. Jagadeeswar Reddy, Advocate for the accused, and upon hearing both sides and having perused the material on record, and on consideration, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1)The Sub-Inspector of Atmakur P.S filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.24/2017 for the offences punishable under section 498-A 323, 509 r/w 34 IPC.

2) The case of the prosecution as per the charge sheet is that about 27 years ago PW1 and A1 fell in love and got married and blessed with two sons.

Before the marriage A1 did not have any immovable property. After the marriage

they worked hard and earned 5 acres of land, some sheep and 2 ½ tulas of gold jewels. While so, about 2 years prior to this incident A1 developed illegal contact with A4 and then started ill treatment towards PW1 by neglecting her and her son.

On 16.2.17 at about 9-30am while PW1 was sweeping her sheep pen, A2 to A4 went there and started abusing PW1 in filthy language and hurled stones at her.

Meantime A1 also joined them and abused PW1 in filthy language and beat her with 2 hands and legs indiscriminately and insulted her and took her to her parents house and left PW1 and informed her younger brother LW2 Boli Obulapathi that he did not want her. On a complaint given by PW1 on 17-2-17 at 5-00pm LW5 Dharanikishore,

S.I of police Atmakur PS registered a case and investigated into the same. During the course of investigation, LW5 examined the witnesses and recorded their statements, visited the scene of offence and drawn rough sketch of the same. On 22.2.17 LW5 served notice to all the accused u/s 41-A Cr.P.C with instructions to appear in Atmakur PS whenever called for. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against A-1 to A-4.

3) After filing charge sheet, this case was taken cognizance by the Addl.

Judl. Magistrate of I class, Anantapuramu for the offences U/S. 498-A, 323, 509 r/w 34 I.P.C and numbered as C.C.487/2017. As per the proceedings of Hon'ble District and Session Judge, Ananthapurmu this case was transferred to this court and renumbered the same as C.C.954/2017.

4) On appearance of A-1 to A-4, copies of case records were furnished to them as required Under Sec. 207 of Cr.P.C.

5) The accused A-1 to A-4 were examined under Sec.239 Cr.P.C and charges U/S. 498-A, 323, 509 r/w 34 I.P.C were framed, read over and explained to them in Telugu. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6)To prove its case, the prosecution examined PW.1 and PW2 and got marked Exs.P1 to P3 on its behalf.

7) As there is no incriminating material in the evidence of PW.1 and PW2, the examination of the accused under Sec. 313 of Cr.P.C was dispensed with.

8)Heard both sides.

9)Now, the point arose for determination is:

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of A-1 to A-4

for the offences Under Sec 498-A,323, 509 r/w 34 I.P.C

beyond all reasonable doubt ?

10)POINT : PW.1 Boya Venkatalakshmi deposed that her marriage with A1 was solemnized about 28yrs ago and were blessed with two kids and no disputes took place between her and A1 as well as A2 to A4 with rgard to any type of issues and she never sustained injuries in the hands of A1 to A4. She never preferred any 3 complaint against A1 to A4. In the year 2017 police obtained her signature on some written papers, the contents of which were not known to her and Ex.P1 is her signature. She was not examined by the police. PW.1 did not state anything incriminating against A-1 to A-4 in her evidence. The prosecution treated her hostile and cross-examined her and marked her Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement as Ex.P2.

11)PW2 K. chinthalappa, hearsay witness deposed that tno quarrel took place between A1 to A4 and PW1 and he was not examined by the police. But the prosecution did not elicit anything in the cross-examination of PWs1 and 2 in favour of its case. Therefore, it is held that the evidence of PWs1 and 2 is not helpful to the case of the prosecution.

12)In this case Pws1 and 2 turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution and did not speak anything against the accused.

13)Under the above circumstances, I feel that prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilt of accused. Learned APP after considering the evidence of PW1 and 2 felt that it is sheer wastage of time in examining remaining witnesses and she given up examining remaining witnesses which move is acceptable Hence, accused deserves for acquittal.

14)In the result, the accused A-1 to A-4 are found not guilty for the offences under Sec.498-A, 323, 509 r/w 34 IPC and they are acquitted under Sec 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of A-1 to A-4 shall stands cancelled after six months of pronouncing this Judgment as per the provisions of Section 437-A Cr.P.C. The unmarked non valuable property, if any, shall be destroyed after appeal time.

Typed to my dictation directly by the Stenographer, corrected

and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 9 th day of April,

2018 .

Sd/- A. Thousheed Hussain

Spl.Judl.Magistrate of Ist Class, Proh. & Excise Cases, Anatapuramu.

A ppendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

Prosecution Defence PW1 : B. Venkatalakshmi Nil PW2 : K. Chinthalappa 4

Exhibits marked for

Prosecution Defence

Ex.P1 : Signature of PW1 in complaint. Nil Ex.P2 : 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW1 Ex.P2 : 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW2

Mos marked

Nil . Sd/- ATH PJCJ

(FAC)J.F.C.M.

//True Copy//

PJCJ (FAC)Spl.J.F.C.M., 5

CALENDAR CASES TRIED IN THE SPECIAL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS

MAGISTRATE FOR PROHIBITION AND EXCISE CASES, ANANTAPURAMU

Date of Report or Apprehen- Released Commenc Close of Sentence

Offence Complaint sion of on bail ement of trial Order

accused trial

16.2.201717.02.2017 – --6.4.20186.4.20189.4.2018

Calendar and Judgement in C.C.No.954/2017 on the file of Special Judicial First Class Magistrate for Prohibition and Excise Cases, Ananthapuramu.

Complainant: The Sub Inspector of Police, Atmakur P.S.

Crime No: 24/2017

Father's

Name of the Age Religion Calling Residence Mandal

Name Accused

Boya Akkulappa @Padamati 51 Kotla ObannaHindu--Atmakur Kotla AkkulappaYaleru

Padamati Boya Ravi34B.ObannaHindu--Atmakur Yaleru

Boya Vannuri @ BoyaPadamati 37B. ObulesuHindu--Atmakur OnnurappaYaleru

Padamati Boya Lakshmidevi34VannurappaHindu--Atmakur Yaleru

Offence: U/Sec.498-A, 323, 509 r/w 34 of D.P.Act

Finding: Not guilty.

Sentence: In the result, the accused A-1 to A-4 are found not guilty for the offences under Sec.498-A, 323, 509 r/w 34 IPC and they are acquitted under Sec 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of A-1 to A-4 shall stands cancelled after six months of pronouncing this Judgment as per the provisions of Section 437-A Cr.P.C. The unmarked non valuable property, if any, shall be destroyed after appeal time

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Ananthapuramu FAC Spl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Proh. & Excise Cases, Anatapuramu.

Copy submitted to the Hon’ble I Addl. Sessions Judge, Anantapuramu. Copy to the Superintendent of Police, Anantapuramu.

6

1

In the Court of the Special Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Prohibition & Excise Cases, Anantapur.

Present:- Sri. A. Thousheed Hussain,

Prl. Junior Civil Judge,

FAC-Special Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Prohibition and Excise cases, Ananthapuram

Thursday the 3 rd day of May, 2018

C.C.NO.762/2017

Between:-

State Rep. by Sub-Inspector of Police, Narpala P.S. …Complainant.

AND

Pitta Eswaraiah, aged 37 years, S/o P. Peddanna, D.No.1-324, Digumarri Village Narpala Mandal. Anantapuramu District. …Accused.

This case is coming on 01-05-2018 for final hearing before me in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the state and of Sri A.

Sreekantha Reddy, advocate for the accused, and upon hearing both sides and having perused the material on record, this court delivered the following:

:: JUDGMENT ::

1)The sub Inspector of Narpala P.S. filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.86/16 for the offences punishable Under section 498-A, 355, 506 IPC.

2)The brief contents of the charge sheet is as follows:

That PW1-Pitta Lakshmidevi is the defacto-complainant got married with the Accused 15 years ago and they blessed with one sone and daughter.

They lived amicable for few days and the Accused made harassment after drinking alcohol. LW3-Gandi Pedda Pullappa warned the Accused and fought each other and in that incident Balaraju sustained stab injuries. The Accused abused her in filthy language and suspect the fidelity of defacto-complainant 2 and the children born to some other person. On 30.09.2016 night about 9.30pm, the Accused consumed alcohol beaten and abused PW1 to compromise the case with PW3 and infront of Accused house in a public place with use of blade, the accident trimmed the hair on scalp and dishonour PW1 and also threatened defacto-complainant “Neeku dhikkunna chota cheppuko ninnu mee annanu champootha” and went away from the spot. Thus, accused has committed an offence punishable U/S 498-A, 355, 506 IPC.

3)The cognizance was taken against the accused for the offence under section 498-A, 355, 506 IPC by the learned AJFCM, Anantapuramu and numbered as C.C.1169/2016.

4)On appearance of the accused, all relevant case records were furnished to him as required under section 207 of Cr.PC.

5)During the course of examination, as per the orders of the Hon'ble Dist.

& Sessions Judge, Anantapuramu the case was transferred to this court and it was renumbered as C.C.762/2017.

6)The accused was examined Under Section 239 Cr.P.C by explaining the substance of accusation leveled against him for the offence U/S 498-A, 355, 506 IPC as per the charge sheet and the same was read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he denied the same and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried according to law.

7)The prosecution examined PW1 to PW4 and got marked Exs.P1 to P5 on its behalf. On the other hand, defence never led any kind evidence except depending upon the loopholes of prosecution.

8)After closure of prosecution evidence, examination U/sec. 313 Cr.P.C is dispensed off, as there is no incriminating material found against him from 3 the evidence of prosecution.

Heard arguments of both sides and perused the record.

Now the point that arises for determination is:

Whether the Prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of

accused for the offences punishable U/S 498-A, 355, 506 IPC beyond

all reasonable doubts?

POINT:

9) In order to substantiate the case of prosecution, prosecution examined

PW1-Pitta lakshmidevi deposed that her marriage with Accused was solemnized 14 years ago. The Accused never subjected her to go physical and mental harassment. The Accused never insulted her and she never preferred complaint against the Accused. PW1 further deposed that in the year 2016, Narpala police obtained her signature on some written papers and the contents of which were not known to her. PW1 identified her signature on complaint, dt.01.10.2016 and she was not at all examined by police.

10)The prosecution examined PW2-Gandi Ankalamma, she deposed that the Accused is the husband of PW1. The marriage of PW1 was solemnized with Accused 14 years ago. The Accused never subjected PW1 both physically and mentally. The Accused never insulted PW1. PW1 never preferred complaint against Accused and police did not examined her.

11)The prosecution examined PW3-Gandi Pedda Pullappa, he deposed that the Accused never subjected PW1 both physical and mental harassment.

The Accused never insulted PW1. PW1 never preferred complaint against

Accused and police did not examine him.

4

12)The prosecution examined PW4-Pitta Balanagamma, she deposed that the marriage of PW1 was solemnized with the Accused 14 years ago. The

Accused never subjected PW1 both physically and mentally. The Accused never insulted PW1. PW1 never preferred complaint against Accused and police did not examine her.

13)The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor cross examined PW1 to PW4 with the permission of the Court but they did not reveal anything against

Accused and any incriminating evidence, as such the learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor given up examining remaining witnesses.

14)On perusal of the entire case on hand, the prosecution failed to prove the its case beyond all reasonable doubts, hence the Accused is entitled for acquittal under benefit of doubt.

15)In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable u/s. 498-A, 355, 506 IPC and the accused is acquitted U/S 248 (1) Cr.P.C. bail bonds of the accused shall stands canceled after six months of pronouncing this judgement as per the provisions Under Section 437-A Cr.P.C. The unmarked case non valuable property, if any, shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Typed to my dictation by stenographer corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 3rd day of May, 2018.

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, FAC-Spl.Judl.Magistrate of Ist Class, Proh & Excise Cases, Anatapuram. Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined

Prosecution Defence PW1 : Pitta Lakshmidevi. Nil 5

PW2 : Gandi Ankalamma. PW3 : Gandi Pedda Pullappa. PW4 : Pitta Balanagamma. Exhibits marked for prosecution. Defence Ex.P1 : Signature of PW1 on complaint. Nil Ex.P2 : 161 Cr.P.C statement of pw1. Ex.P3 : 161 Cr.P.C statement of pw2. Ex.P4 : 161 Cr.P.C statement of pw3. Ex.P5 : 161 Cr.P.C statement of pw4. Mos marked on behalf of Prosecution Defence Nil Nil

PJCJ

FAC-SJFCM

CALENDAR CASES TRIED IN THE SPECIAL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

FOR PROHITION AND EXCISE CASES, ANANTAPURAMU

Date of Report or Apprehens Released Commenc Close of Sentence

Offence Complaint ion of on bail ement of trial Order

accused trial

30.09.201630.09.201602.11.201708.03.201801.05.201801.05.201803.05.2018

Calendar and Judgment in CC.No.762/16 on the file of Special Judicial First

Class Magistrate for Prohibition and Excise Cases, Anantapuramu.

Complainant : Sub Inspector, Narpala P.S.,

Cr.No.86/2016

Pitta Eswaraiah, aged 37 years, S/o P. Peddanna, D.No.1-324, Digumarri Village Narpala Mandal. Anantapuramu District.

Offence :-Under section .

Finding :- Found not guilty.

Sentence or Order:-In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable u/s. 498-A, 355, 506 IPC and the accused is acquitted U/S 248 (1) Cr.P.C. bail bonds of the accused shall stands canceled after six months of pronouncing this judgement as per the provisions Under Section 437-A Cr.P.C. The unmarked case non valuable property, if any, shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, FAC-Special Judicial First Class Magistrate, for Prohibition and Excise Cases, Anantapuramu.

Copy Submitted :-

1. The Hon’ble I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Anantapuramu.

2. The Superintendent of Police, Anantapuramu.